There will be no welcoming committee
for Oprah Winfrey in Amarillo, Texas, the heart of cattle country, when she
brings her show there at the end of this month. Instead, Winfrey will be facing
the $12 million lawsuit brought against her by six cattle feeder corporations.
She and former cattle rancher Howard Lyman are being sued for statements they
made regarding the potential dangers of mad cow disease in the U.S. beef supply,
which stems from the practice of feeding rendered animal remains to livestock.

The basis for the suit is a recently
enacted law in Texas (with similar laws passed by 12 other states and pending
in at least nine additional states) known as food disparagement statutes and
dubbed "veggie-libel laws" or "banana bills" by the press.
Such light-hearted treatment of a serious threat to free speech is unfortunate
because it diverts attention from the proponents of these laws and their underlying
motivations.

These new laws allow industry to
recover damages from individuals making false statements about perishable food
products. But just what is considered "false" is painfully unclear,
resulting in the freedom of speech being chilled. Industry's game plan is to
quietly go state-by-state, a common tactic when it comes to patently unconstitutional
proposals. This strategy avoids a national debate and preys on the loyalties
of local constituencies of state legislatures.

Who is behind the passage of these
laws? First, there are the obvious proponents  the meat, dairy and produce
industries. In Texas, testifying in support of the bill were representatives
of the Texas Farm Bureau, the Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas,
the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, the Texas Cattle Feeders
Association and the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council. Testifying against
the bill was one representative of consumers Union, hardly enough muscle to
match an entire industry.

Just as interesting a question is:
Who else besides the suppliers of meat and produce is behind the proliferation
of these laws? The very industries that have at least as much to lose 
those that supply the feed and chemicals to these industries. Indeed, the plaintiffs
in the Texas lawsuit are six Texas cattle feeding companies and are being led
by Paul Engler, owner of Cactus Feeders, one of the largest U.S. cattle feeding
operations.

A national trade organization, the
American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), developed the model legislation 
which explains why several of the laws are strikingly similar in language. Curiously,
the organization making the text of the model law available is actually the
Animal Industry Foundation (AIF), a 501(c)(3) "education foundation"
and according to their cover letter, "was in no way responsible for the
development of the model bill or any of the legislation pertaining to this or
any other issue." They sound a bit defensive, and understandably so, because
they share the same mailing address with AFIA and could lose those their tax-deductible,
non-profit status by engaging in political and lobbying activities.

The President of the American Feed
Industry Association, David Bossman, in his "Reflections on a Good Year,"
ponders about the use of animal waste products in feed, which "took a higher
profile than any of us really wanted or anticipated." He predicts that
"1998 will probably be a year in which we learn more about how to utilize
animal manure" and asks: "To feed or not to feed? Who should
have jurisdiction, state, fed or local? Lots of manure issues will be up front
in '98." Yes, but only those dictated by industry, thanks to the chilling
effect on everybody else. Is this an organization that should be dictating public
policy?

The other major stakeholder is the
chemical industry, supplier of massive amounts of pesticides for crops. They
have a lot to lose from people making statements about the potential dangers
of chemicals on our food. It was the 1989 "Alar on apples scare" piece
on 60 Minutes that prompted the supposed need for these laws in the first
place. The chemical industry's influence is also obvious from parallel state
laws being proposed which would prevent government environmental agencies from
educating consumers about alternative, safer cleaning and pesticide products.

These laws are nothing more than
an effort by big business to chill the free speech efforts by those seeking
to raise legitimate questions about the safety of our nation's food supply.
And by choosing to sue Oprah Winfrey, a very visible defendant, they will probably
achieve that goal, regardless of the outcome in this case. Most legal experts
agree that that these laws will not hold up in court. A law review article published
in the prestigious Harvard Journal on Legislation concluded that, "these
restrictions on speech about the quality and safety of our food are dangerous
and unconstitutional." However, by the time the case winds through the
court system, the chilling effect will take hold. According to Emory University
law professor David J. Bederman: "Stories get spiked every week. The evil
of these laws is that they do precisely what they were intended to do, which
is to chill speech."

This is exactly what industry had
in mind. And given the proliferation pesticides, growth hormones, radiation
and genetic engineering in our food supply, it is critically important to industry
to gain control over public outcry. Unfortunately, it is even more important,
given the unknown and potential hazards of these methods, for the public to
maintain its First Amendment right to raise legitimate safety concerns.